Quote from: franky1 on Today at 11:50:35 AM

OP you are the one that is talking about 'proposals'.. POW has nothing to do with that.
however your latest post and hints else where is about proportional representation

i gather you are talking about wanting whole network involvement

but here is the thing again
are you wanting whole network involvement of the POW (this topic is wrote about POW issues after all)
meaning when you say "proposals" you actually mean possible blocks candidates outside of a pooled system?

or is it about whole network usernode involvement in code ruleset decisions(proposals)
..
if you are talking about a system where many nodes can collate transaction lists (each/independently) and secure them with a weaker(independent manageable) ID and broadcast their independent block to the network

you have to factor in how over X years people will find their own way to move away from that (as thats how bitcoin was in 2009) where by they then create mining rigs and asics and start pooling them ..
meaning your attempts is just temporary and end up returning to the same situation again

Ah beautiful I think i'm with you now. I'm saying the issue with POW is its designed to minimize the number of proposals associated with the solved block IDs(ideally one per block so chain doesn't split). Im also saying ideally a decentralized consensus method would involve the whole network as to get all relevant network perspectives. If the whole network was involved, however, there wouldn't be a need for a POW mechanism anymore. Im referring to a system where every node in the network creates a proposal from their own local transaction pools and the most 'efficient' proposal is automatically spread and verified/confirmed.

and yes mb proposals = possible blocks
I'm not great at turning my thoughts into words so thank you for being patient.